Page 17 of 31 FirstFirst ...
7
15
16
17
18
19
27
... LastLast
  1. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    I didn't leave anything out, I simply replied to your comment. if you typed more after, that's not really my fault.
    Nah, you just chose to take it out of context and leave out the message to whom I was responding.

  2. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Nah, you just chose to take it out of context and leave out the message to whom I was responding.
    That's what replying does...

    Your literal comment:

    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Some people just can't refrain themselves.

  3. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    That's what replying does...

    Your literal comment:
    And you obviously did not read the quote I was replying to ?

  4. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    And you obviously did not read the quote I was replying to ?
    Oh, I obviously did, and your shenanigans and bad takes were called out pages and pages ago.

  5. #325
    The Insane draynay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    17,177
    Quote Originally Posted by Specialka View Post
    Nah, you just chose to take it out of context and leave out the message to whom I was responding.
    Its for the best really, the combination of "seizes to amaze" and "can't refrain themselves" nearly gave me a brain aneurysm.
    /s

  6. #326
    Legendary! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    6,650
    Quote Originally Posted by draynay View Post
    Its for the best really, the combination of "seizes to amaze" and "can't refrain themselves" nearly gave me a brain aneurysm.
    God, I'm glad someone had the same reaction I did. I was inching to make a comment, but couldn't bare to.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  7. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    NBC News reports that...well, it's what you expect, if you were thinking about it even a little bit.



    I do not expect every actor in every movie to check on every technical assistant on that same movie when handed a prop gun, a car, makeup, etc. When Baldwin was handed a prop gun, I don't think he said "Wait a minute, maybe I should check this guy's work history..."



    Have you changed your mind yet?
    However, if Baldwin is hiring anyone(not sure if he is the producer hiring people or just putting money into the movie), I'm pretty sure it would be prudent to look at work history, especially in a position that might be subject to safety regulations.

  8. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by draynay View Post
    Its for the best really, the combination of "seizes to amaze" and "can't refrain themselves" nearly gave me a brain aneurysm.
    "My guys are still under a judicial estrangement order! That blue thing I got from her! They could be exposing themselves!"


  9. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by Thwart View Post
    I also doubt that he meant to cause harm, but it was not an accident. He was negligent. One should ALWAYS treat every firearm as if it is loaded. One should NEVER point a firearm at anyone/anything they do not intend to destroy.
    While this is an excellent rule to follow in the vast majority of circumstances, this was a movie set so there should be an expectation that the props are generally safe to handle and designed for actors to point at each other.

  10. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by Thwart View Post
    While you are likely correct about the outcome, it will because he is Alec Baldwin. We peons in a similar situation would already be arrested, jailed, and trying to make bail.
    He was rehearsing a scene and was handed a ''cold gun'' on the set by the expert. Seriously is it your job to have as bad of a take on any given situation as possible? Do research a little over something. Hell at least Google some shit before you go off the deep end in a thread

  11. #331
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Actors can’t act? Fuck this ridiculous opinion. Go safe with airsoft and add some basic cgi gun effects. Nobody’s life is worth having someone flinch when a blank goes off.
    This is what doesn't make sense to me. Why can't they just add in the gun sound effect and the smoke later? It can't be that hard. We have entire movies made in CGI. There should never be the possibility that an actor could press a trigger and a projectile gets released in direction of a mother human being in 2021.
    Last edited by GreenJesus; 2021-10-27 at 11:46 PM.

  12. #332
    Legendary! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    6,650
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    This is what doesn't make sense to me. Why can't they just add in the gun sound effect later and the smoke later? It can't be that hard.
    Because prop guns are demonstrably safe when the proper procedure is followed. Considering that the last prop gun death was nearly 30 years ago, I'd say that it's not the system that's at fault here.


    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    There should never be the possibility that an actor could press a trigger and a projectile gets released in direction of a mother human being in 2021.
    I mean, it's not like Halyna was shot with a blank. That live round had no business being on the set, let alone loaded into the prop gun. Again, that's not a "mistake", that's criminal negligence, and has nothing to do with normal set procedure.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  13. #333
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    This is what doesn't make sense to me. Why can't they just add in the gun sound effect and the smoke later? It can't be that hard. We have entire movies made in CGI. There should never be the possibility that an actor could press a trigger and a projectile gets released in direction of a mother human being in 2021.
    It's simple, it's way more expensive and time consuming.

  14. #334
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    69,912
    Quote Originally Posted by GreenJesus View Post
    This is what doesn't make sense to me. Why can't they just add in the gun sound effect and the smoke later? It can't be that hard. We have entire movies made in CGI. There should never be the possibility that an actor could press a trigger and a projectile gets released in direction of a mother human being in 2021.
    Why do they use real cars for some scenes? Just CGI it.

    Why bother having stunt men? Just CGI it.

    Repeat ad infinitum. Practical effects have a lot of advantages and CGI is not a magic fix-all button.


  15. #335
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Because prop guns are demonstrably safe when the proper procedure is followed. Considering that the last prop gun death was nearly 30 years ago, I'd say that it's not the system that's at fault here.



    I mean, it's not like Halyna was shot with a blank. That live round had no business being on the set, let alone loaded into the prop gun. Again, that's not a "mistake", that's criminal negligence, and has nothing to do with normal set procedure.
    Prop guns aren’t demonstrably safe. If they were there wouldn’t be a ton of safety protocols to avoid things like this. There’s zero reason to have working guns on set in the modern era.

  16. #336
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    If they were there wouldn’t be a ton of safety protocols to avoid things like this.
    But...that's why they are demonstrably safe and why the last incident like this was three decades ago. There's far, far more risk in stunts and driving than there is with the use of guns on set, because you can control fewer risks throughout those stunts compared to being able to control that a prop gun is never loaded with live ammunition.

  17. #337
    Legendary! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    6,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Prop guns aren’t demonstrably safe.
    It's almost like you stopped reading halfway through:
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    Because prop guns are demonstrably safe when the proper procedure is followed.
    Again, demonstrably, those procedures are followed with very few exceptions, hence the nearly 30-year gap between prop gun deaths. And, again, this wasn't simply "an accident", this was criminal negligence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    There’s zero reason to have working guns on set in the modern era.
    You ignoring the reasons doesn't mean they don't exist. You ignoring the safety record in the industry doesn't mean it's hazardous.

    With very, very few exceptions, there is zero reason to have live ammunition on set. That alone would have prevented this tragedy. Anything else is unwarranted hyper-extensive knee-jerking.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  18. #338
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    But...that's why they are demonstrably safe and why the last incident like this was three decades ago. There's far, far more risk in stunts and driving than there is with the use of guns on set, because you can control fewer risks throughout those stunts compared to being able to control that a prop gun is never loaded with live ammunition.
    No, the protocols make using them somewhat safe. Even then they treat them as highly dangerous, except in cases like this one. Treating them as safe unless you absolutely make them safe is a sure way to end up with someone injured. That’s why they don’t point them at anyone or anything vital when using blanks. And before Lee it was less than a decade to the next person dying. If you remove the actual real guns all it does it make the set safer. Not sure why anyone thinks they have to use real guns. CGI and acting can produce the same effect.

  19. #339
    Legendary! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    6,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    But...that's why they are demonstrably safe and why the last incident like this was three decades ago. There's far, far more risk in stunts and driving than there is with the use of guns on set, because you can control fewer risks throughout those stunts compared to being able to control that a prop gun is never loaded with live ammunition.
    I mean, there's far more risk of death while camping, or swimming, or many other leisure activities.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  20. #340
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    No, the protocols make using them somewhat safe.
    Given the record, I'd argue it does make them safe, which is why the last incident was 3 decades ago. The accident rate is non-existent compared to normal gun handling/use.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •